Andreas Fleischmann Posted August 20, 2008 Report Share Posted August 20, 2008 Hello, There's a new member in the familiy of South American Pings of tropical growth type: Pinguicula chuquisacensis (okay, I have to admit that the name sounds a little bit strange. I wanted to have it called P. bolivensis, but the other 2 co-autors wanted to point out the high endemism of the plant to the Chuquisaca valley of Bolivia. So I lost this fight ;)). The full description is available for download for free ;) here: http://www.bgbm.org/willdenowia/w-pdf/wi38-1Beck+al.pdf And that's what the plant looks like: ?Strange, I this photo does not show up when I try to post it here directly. Why? Thus, here's the link to the photo: http://www.bgbm.org/willdenowia/willd38/im...a_HH%201121.jpg This photo was taken by my bolivian colleague Hibert Huaylla. Bob, I will ask him if you can link it to your CP photofinder, if you like. This strange species does not look much like its Andean relatives, but reminds me of some European species such as P. grandiflora or P. longifolia agg. However its flowers are almost identical to those of P. antarctica (sorry, no photos of the flowers ). This species is found only in a very small population at a single place in the Chuquisaca sandstone valley, and is therefore considered to be critically endangered. For sure the most rare of the South American Pings. Another result of our study: P. elongata is not related to the other Andean/South American Pinguicula species (like Caspar suggested), but much closer to the Mexican species. Makes sense, if you consider flower structure and growth type). All the best, Andreas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZ Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 Thanks for the information Andreas. Interesting plant. I will link to the PDF and HTML pages, rather than to the jpg. http://www.bgbm.org/willdenowia/willd38/beck+al.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff 1 Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 (edited) but it is a P.jarmilae described by HALDA-HERTENS-MALINA in 2007 . in your document no comparaison with P. jarmilae and involuta , no flower picture how method for including the kinds Andean in the tree phylogenetic, you have remakes all the analyses ? jeff Edited August 21, 2008 by jeff 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Fleischmann Posted August 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 (edited) Dear Jeff, Pinguicula jarmilae J.J. Halda & M. Malina seems to be just a name, the species description seems not to be valid according to ICBN, as the issue of Acta Musei Richnoviensis (Vol 14(4)), where the protologue was published, appeared only in digital form so far (as pdf-file), but not as a printed issue. And there's no type specimen deposited in Prague herbarium yet, as cited in the protologue. Moreover, Halda's plant material was illegally collected in Bolivia, however this is still no reason for a plant description to be invalid (although there are some precedences with some recent orchid descriptions based on illegally collected plant material). in your document no comparaison with P. jarmilae and involuta , no flower picture Why should there be a picture of the flower???? And there's a detailed one in the drawing ;) A comparision with P. involuta is given in the text. A comparision with P. jarmilae is superfluous, as this is the same species! ;) how method for including the kinds Andean in the tree phylogenetic, you have remakes all the analyses ? Sorry, Jeff, I did not get this. Could you ask me again, peut-être en français ? Peut-être je peux comprendre la phrase alors ? All the best, Andreas Edited August 21, 2008 by Andreas Fleischmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sockhom Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 (edited) Hi Andreas. Very interesting. I didn't have the time to read all the paper yet but let me say I do appreciate your constant endeavour to propose us, mere growers, scientific papers and insight. François. Edited August 21, 2008 by Sockhom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epbb Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Dear Andreas, Thanks a lot and as writen priviously, what a discovery with this unusual growing habit and morphological plant comparatively to the others south andies Pinguicula. I noticed on P. antarctica and P. chilensis the use of prodcing plantlets on underground stolons. Do you know if this species are reproducing also by this sometimes (I just think of the rhizome like under the rosette) ? forming hibernaculum ? gemmae ? If you didn't written that it was a south andies Pinguicula, I would have written that it was a European Pinguicula in a typical growing habit ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff 1 Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 ICBN here the ST louis code ( only translate in french) http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclature/code...t.Luistitle.htm there are a protologue published with a ISSN 1213.4260 it is not suffisant . why a digital form is no valid ? can you tell me the article on the obligation to register in a herbarium ? your specimen is visible in an herbarium ? you are sure on this illegally collect ? they had no possibility to describe a species in the country or 'in situ' I am perhaps exacting but here 2 name with perhaps a anteriority princip . for the flower the drawing is succinct , some picture are more appropriate : face - profile - over to see the calyx lob form ,now with a APN it is very easy to make. comparision with P.involuta just on the leave no on the flower. excuse me for all these question. jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtricSeb Posted November 2, 2010 Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 Hi, Sorry to bring this discussion back but I would like to have a clearer understanding of which name is valid (chuquisacensis or jarmilae) From reading ICBN rules I find the following (http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm): "29.1. Publication is effected, under this Code, only by distribution of printed matter (through sale, exchange, or gift) to the general public or at least to botanical institutions with libraries accessible to botanists generally. It is not effected by communication of new names at a public meeting, by the placing of names in collections or gardens open to the public, by the issue of microfilm made from manuscripts, typescripts or other unpublished material, or solely by distribution electronically or through any electronic medium" This supports what Andreas writes, that the name jarmilae is not valid because it was only published in electronic medium (at least until he published the name chuquisacensis). Is this enough to accept chuquisacensis as the valid name? By searching the CP database I can only find the name jarmilae. I really would like to read the experts opinion (of course including Andreas) about this topic. Regards, Sebastian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisscool_38 Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 "29.1. Publication is effected, under this Code, only by distribution of printed matter (through sale, exchange, or gift) to the general public or at least to botanical institutions with libraries accessible to botanists generally. It is not effected by communication of new names at a public meeting, by the placing of names in collections or gardens open to the public, by the issue of microfilm made from manuscripts, typescripts or other unpublished material, or solely by distribution electronically or through any electronic medium" Yes, that's true. Only-electronic descriptions are not valid, and it is still a matter of debate between botanists. A few weeks ago, I received an e-mail from the French botanical society saying that French botanists will discuss this point during the next International Botanical Congress that will take place in Melbourne in July 2011. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Spence Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 Yes, that's true. Only-electronic descriptions are not valid, and it is still a matter of debate between botanists. A few weeks ago, I received an e-mail from the French botanical society saying that French botanists will discuss this point during the next International Botanical Congress that will take place in Melbourne in July 2011. Melbourne? I hadn't heard of this until now......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisscool_38 Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 (edited) Sean Spence said: Melbourne? I hadn't heard of this until now......... Here it is http://www.ibc2011.com/ (a nice programme) Edited February 21, 2018 by kisscool_38 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff 1 Posted November 6, 2010 Report Share Posted November 6, 2010 (edited) Bonjour Here we are not talking about ISBN ( for the book) but from ISSN ( serial publication). the exact publication: "acta musee richnov section nature volume 14(4) page 105-126 (2007) copyright 2007 MGOH RYCHNOV N.KN , ISSN 1213-4260 " valid also from some Begonia and Tillandsia we are not sure that there are a electronic publication . jeff Edited November 6, 2010 by jeff 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtricSeb Posted November 6, 2010 Report Share Posted November 6, 2010 Hi Jeff, what does that mean? Was there a printed publication? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff 1 Posted November 9, 2010 Report Share Posted November 9, 2010 (edited) I wrote to the curator from the RICHNOV museum his answer "hi, yes, it is a paper document; the holotype number is valid - the specimen is kept at our National herbarium. best wishes Josef Halda" then it is a paper (printed)publication ( not an electronic) , the holotype number is valid and we see them to the herbarium . for me the P.jarmilae name is valid the other is a synonyme jeff Edited November 9, 2010 by jeff 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtricSeb Posted November 9, 2010 Report Share Posted November 9, 2010 That's interesting to know Jeff, thanks for the information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisscool_38 Posted November 9, 2010 Report Share Posted November 9, 2010 (edited) We are now expecting an explanation from Andreas as we have the chance to have him on this forum. Edited February 21, 2018 by kisscool_38 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kisscool_38 Posted November 9, 2010 Report Share Posted November 9, 2010 (edited) Oops, a problem. Edited November 9, 2010 by kisscool_38 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.